Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Jan-30-2014
ORDER (No. 14 of 2014) K.N. Basha, Chairman: 1. All these appeals arising out of the common order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs dated 30/4/2010. The appellant in OA/28/2010/PT/CH is the patentee and in other matters the appellants are the parties who have opposed the grant of patent to the appellant in OA/28/2010/PT/CH. 2. Mr. Rahul Balaji the learned counsel for the appellant in OA/28/2010/PT/CH would mainly contend that the impugned order is vitiated on the ground of gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The learned counsel in order to substantiate such contention put forward two fold contentions namely (1) the Assistant Controller of Patents having taken three independent expert evidences filed in the form of affidavits under Rule 60 of the Patent Rules 2003 on record has failed to forward the said expert evidences for the examination by the Board and (2) it is pointed out that the opposition board recommendations of October, 2008 and January, 2009 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Feb-20-2014
(CIRCUIT BENCH SITTING AT KOLKATA) Ms. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman 1. The instant appeal arises out of the order dated 30/08/2005 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, dismissing the opposition No.KOL-166848 and allowing the application No.739760 in class 5 to proceed to registration under the provision of the Trade Marks Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The brief facts of the case are -- The respondent herein filed an application for registration of the trade mark œHepatone? under No.739760 in class 5 on 17/12/1996. The mark was claimed to be used since 13/03/1956. The said application was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. Mega 3 dated 14/10/2003 at page 88. The appellant herein opposed the said registration on various grounds. 3. On completion of the pleadings, the Deputy Registrar heard both the parties and passed the impugned order dismissing the opposition and allowing the application for registration. 4. The Registrar held that the rival trade ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Mar-21-2014
Ms. S. Usha, Vice-Chairman 1. The instant appeal is preferred against the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents dated 12/06/2009 in respect of Patent No.197822 (178/MUM/2004) granted on 21/04/2006 under Section 25(4) of the Patents Act, 1970 pursuant to a post-grant opposition dated 21/04/2007. 2. The facts of the case are “ The 1st respondent filed a Patent application No. 178/MUM/2004 on 16/02/2004. The patent was granted on 21/04/2006 as Patent No. IN 197822. The appellant herein filed a post grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Act. The appellant also filed expert affidavit of Dr. Nagarsenkar. The 1st respondent filed their reply statement to the statement of opposition. The 1st respondent had not filed their evidence though sought time to file evidence. 3. The 2nd respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the opposition filed by the appellants. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred the above appeal on various grounds. (1) that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Apr-04-2014
(CIRCUIT SITTING AT MUMBAI) ORDER (No.43 of 2014) K.N. Basha, Chairman The petitioner who is the respondent No.3 in the appeal preferred this Miscellaneous Petition raising a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the appeal preferred by the appellant/respondent No.3 herein. 2. It is seen that at the time of preferring the appeal this Board granted an order of stay in Miscellaneous Petitioner No.70/2010 seeking for the relief of stay and in Miscellaneous Petition No.71/2010 seeking for the relief of urgent hearing of the matter on 07.12.2011. This Board observed in that order that the impugned order was stayed by the order dated 07.12.2011 in the absence of the respondent who in spite of knowing that the date of hearing has chosen not to be present before the Board. Thereafter, the respondent No.3/petitioner herein preferred a Miscellaneous Petition No.46/2012 for vacating the stay order dated 07.12.2011 and the said petition is pending as on date. Meanwhile, the Resp...
Tag this Judgment!